Police Must Not Behave Like Procrustes: Madras High Court Directs Police To Process RSS Route March Applications
“One thing must be said to the credit of Tamil Nadu police. They have not come up with any novel reasons for rejection. They have been consistently giving the very reasons which this Court found as lame”, the Bench remarked; marches on October 25 and November 01, to proceed subject to local modifications.
The Madras High Court has disposed of a petition by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for route marches across Tamil Nadu, holding that police must make an attempt to process and approve such applications rather than look for defects to reject them. The Court recorded the State’s stand that the marches may go on, with the police retaining power to suggest local modifications.
The Court observed that the police must not behave like Procrustes and must not fit every application onto the same bed of rejection as in earlier years. It recorded that the processions scheduled for October 25 and November 01, 2026 can proceed, and asked the organisers to give advance intimation of route, schedule and contact details.
A Bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan observed, “The police must not behave like Procrustes. They should not search the applications for its rejection by placing it on the same bed as they have done all these years. An attempt must be made to process the applications and approve them rather than looking for defects for its rejection”.
“The law that had been pitted against the petitioner is the Tamil Nadu Police Act. This legislation had been considered by this Court in the year 2022 by the Division Bench in LPA, by Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian in SLP and Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran in the second round of litigation and it was held that it is not a bar for route marches. The Courts had come to a conclusion that the Police Act, enacted by the State legislature, cannot be utilised by the State to snuff out the right of the members of RSS to conduct Route Marches”, the Bench noted further.
Senior Advocate N.L. Rajah appeared for the petitioner and Vijay Narayan, Advocate General appeared for the respondent.
“One thing must be said to the credit of Tamil Nadu police. They have not come up with any novel reasons for rejection. They have been consistently giving the very reasons which this Court found as lame. This Court, by yesterday’s order (i.e., on 15.10.2026) had pointed out that the High Court and the Supreme Court had consistently called upon the parties to resolve the issue so as to decongest the Court. Guidelines have been framed as to how the power to grant permission must be finalised. Yet, the very same guidelines were being utilised for the purpose of its rejection. It is a classic case of using the scalpel not for the purpose of operation, but to kill the patient on whom the operation is said to be performed. Therefore, this Court had called upon the members of RSS, who are organising the Route March as well as the police to strictly adhere to the guidelines”, the Bench categorically remarked..
The petitioner, the RSS State Secretary, applied to the Director General of Police on October 03, 2026 for permission to hold uniformed route marches, led by a band and followed by public meetings, on October 18, October 25 or November 01. Local applications were rejected, including by a letter of October 11, 2026. The grounds were an unpermitted route, places of worship and a rationalist leader’s statue along the route, traffic congestion, unstated participant numbers, loudspeaker use and law and order concerns. The petitioner sought a mandamus to the State authorities to grant permission.
The Court traced the long litigation history. It noted its orders of September 22, 2022, the Division Bench’s restoration of that order, the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the State’s special leave petition on April 11, 2023, and the order of October 16, 2023. The Supreme Court then asked for a mechanism to avoid repeat litigation, and guidelines were framed on January 05, 2024. The matter was first heard on October 15, 2026, when the petitioner was asked to furnish route and participant details, and it was listed again the next day.
The Court reiterated that the freedom to form associations under Article 19(1)(b) Constitution of India can be restricted only by legislation conforming to Article 19(3). It noted that earlier benches had held the Tamil Nadu Police Act no bar to route marches, and that the police had been told not to reject applications over religious structures on the route or the presence of institutions with differing views. Observing that the police were again citing the same reasons, it said the guidelines were being used for rejection rather than resolution.
The Advocate General stated that the October 25 and November 01 processions may proceed, subject to modifications by district police. The petitioner filed an undertaking to comply with the 2024 “Do’s and Don’ts”, and the list of routes and venues was annexed to the order. The time and place of the meeting were to be intimated by October 19, 2026. The petition and the connected miscellaneous petition were closed.
Cause Title: V.G. Jagadeesan v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., WP (Crl.) No. 2790 of 2026 and WPMP (Crl.) No. 1021 of 2026.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate N.L. Rajah, for Advocate V. Chandrasekaran.
Respondent: Advocate General Vijay Narayan with Akash, Government Advocate, John Sathyan, State Public Prosecutor with Arun Anbumani, Additional Public Prosecutor and S. Yogaraja Sekar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side).